im a nuclear power deregulation guy now. thats my new thing. pls respect my guy type from now on, thank u

motivated by this reply

the startup capital required to build a new reactor is disproportionately high compared to the actual risks of the possible failure modes

if we take the climate catastrophe claims as a given, nuclear is the best possible solution

---
RT @idontwa86202030
@chrylis @willlowthewhisp True, but imagine trying to *deregulate nuclear* (gasp!)

Not an election winning platform i suspect

I fear we need to accept e…
https://twitter.com/idontwa86202030/status/1385314135961899013

those who push for radical action to green the world would have to advocate for nuclear for any hope of reducing emissions quickly enough

however, most of them don't do this, bc its not actually about practical solutions, but rather an anti-capitalist Malthusian degrowth cult

even if you manage to convince them of the safety factor, you typically then get pushback about how it's practically impossible to do this for economic reasons, without a govt subsidy

well, evidence-based deregulation is a form of govt subsidy, as it lowers the activation energy

nuclear power is our path to the next stage of technological evolution; ubiquitous cheap power, with drastically lower emissions, will enable us to electrify even those in the most remote locales, as transfer losses will be less significant

and with this comes public buy-in

degrowth arguments suddenly become a lot less sensible when you take away their foundations, ie climate catastrophe and the rurals being left behind and exploited

considering how dangerous the ideology is, imo this alone makes nuclear worthwhile

but there's so much more

ubiquitous nuclear power will allow us to scale our scientific capabilities that much more, throwing massively more energy at the problem of fusion reactors; lowering research costs increases probability of making discoveries sooner

idt I need to explain why fusion is important